[split] Big f116v spillover thread.

[Jorge_Stolfi]

I think there could be one extra aspect to this - the cross here appears to be a religious sign, with some suggestions that the readers should cross themselves when reading the passage each time a cross appears.

Yes, that is surely what the poor guy who tried to restore the lost text thought.  "I see some bits that don't look like any letters, but look like crosses.  Aha, this text must have been a charm, of course... That "c" must be an "a", so that word could be "maria".  That "cbta" must then be "abta", which sounds like Latin.  That "pox" at the top, ... what is it that the priest says at mass? "pox hibiscum"? Maybe.., no, must be "leben""...

In which case there could be specific rules about the way this cross is written, the order of strokes, etc.

The Catholic sign of the cross itself is very standardized and learned as a kid: "In nomine Patris [touch forehead], et Filii [touch chest], et Spiritus [touch left shoulder] Sanctii [touch right shoulder].  With the right hand (apparently even if one is left-handed).

Doing the sign of the cross any other way would stand out and mark one as not a real Catholic, maybe a heretic, Satanist even.

That said, I don't think there is any tradition or rule about the order of drawing a cross. Even because a simple sign of two strokes like a "+" would hardly be recognized as a Christian Cross except in specific contexts (like a charm or missal).  To be seen a cross the drawing would have to be "fatter".

All the best, --stolfi